infinity ag said:

---

We have a lot of senior posters here.

Did any of you watch the King vs Riggs match live on TV or in the stadium?

---

Was the match Rigged?

TXAG 05 said:

---

The Riggs/King match is more well known, but that one only happened because Riggs smoked the #1 women's player at the time a couple months earlier.

---

Refresh my memory. Was that Margaret Court? I used to really follow tennis in the 70a and 80s but not so much now.

infinity ag said:

---

We have a lot of senior posters here.

Did any of you watch the King vs Riggs match live on TV or in the stadium?

---

Of course I did! Riggs was clowning around but King truly took that match seriously and trained for it specifically. A lot of hype for that match. Similar to the kind of face off that was standard for heavey weight prize fights back then.

IIIHorn said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

...but I will say that Women's Tennis is a racket.






I will show myself out now.

---

See you down the line.

---

I luv what you're both doing, here.

BigRobSA said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

...but I will say that Women's Tennis is a racket.






I will show myself out now.

---

See you down the line.

---

I luv what you're both doing, here.

---

It's always the man's fault.

TXAG 05 said:

---

The Riggs/King match is more well known, but that one only happened because Riggs smoked the #1 women's player at the time a couple months earlier.

---

I have no proof but I think Riggs tanked the match and made a ton of gambling money. He was known to be a master gambler. I believe in 1939, he wagered that he would win the Mens Singles, Mens Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles AND HE WON THEM ALL.

Seven Costanza said:

---

I would interested in seeing just how fast a highly motivated, top-ranked male could beat her in two sets under normal rules. Is 10 minutes unreasonable?

---

Yes. There is a lot of standing around in tennis. 6-0, 6-0 would take at least 20 minutes.

Seven Costanza said:

---

I would interested in seeing just how fast a highly motivated, top-ranked male could beat her in two sets under normal rules. Is 10 minutes unreasonable?

---

Let's measure in terms of points scored by her.

zero? Maybe 1? Two tops.

aggiehawg said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

We have a lot of senior posters here.

Did any of you watch the King vs Riggs match live on TV or in the stadium?

---

Of course I did! Riggs was clowning around but King truly took that match seriously and trained for it specifically. A lot of hype for that match. Similar to the kind of face off that was standard for heavey weight prize fights back then.

---

That was on 20 September 1973, I looked it up. I was new to this world so maybe my parents watched it. I have to watch videos of that if available. Looks like people took those matches much more seriously in the 70s. Yes, even the heavyweight fights until the Tyson era got a lot of publicity, that has all faded away now.

infinity ag said:

---

We have a lot of senior posters here.

Did any of you watch the King vs Riggs match live on TV or in the stadium?

---

Admitted Old here.

Yes, I did watch that match. There was a TON of hype leading up to the match, including from both players. King presented Riggs with a pig before the match, and there was a lot of ribbing back and forth before, during, and after the match. My entire family watched it. I'm sure some people thought the match was meaningful, but it was really just a spectacle.

I treated myself to Wimbledon this past summer for a "monument" birthday. I got to see matches on Centre Court and Court One, including those featuring Sabalenka, Ben Shelton, and Alcaraz, among others. The women's game on grass, right now, is probably a more interesting game than is the mens' game. Points are longer and more "crafted". In the mens' game on grass in particular, a first serve is an ace, a service winner, or a fault. It's rare to get a long rally where you can see how a player is trying to "dictate" a point. Not to mention, as an admitted male chauvinist pig, I find a lot of the female players on tour to be pretty "hot".

In my "Old" mind, it seemed that in 1973 there was a real, earnest fight for women's rights. Today it seems as if the opposite is true, we are denying that there is any difference between men and women, and that any perceived differences are just societal constructs. I suppose that's why OP chose to post this on Forum 16. You've come a long way, Baby!

infinity ag said:

---

Let's measure in terms of points scored by her.

zero? Maybe 1? Two tops.

---

It would be more than that, I think. A game in tennis goes to 4 points, win by two. Presuming every set won by Jannik Sinner (world #2) requires him to win four points (no deuces), which is highly likely, he has to get 48 points to win 6-0, 6-0.

Now, the key thing for Sabalenka is whether she is playing the game as if she is trying to "win", or just trying to maximize the number of points she wins. If she does the latter, she will hit all of her second serves as first serves, because if she double faults, who cares? It's not like she's going to win a point with a second serve.

So that gives Sabalenka 24 1 in 2 chances to hit a first serve in the court. Her first serve has been clocked north of 130 mph, which obviously is not nearly as hard as the top men serve, but is fast enough that Sinner is not going to be able to hit a clean winner every time. Sabalenka's play is to serve and volley; there is no point in going for a rally she will obviously lose. Serve hard, win point on volley off return. I would put the over and under on her success with this tactic at 2.5 points, if all her serves are 1st serves.

Plus, Sinner will probably mis hit a ball or two along the way. He also might double fault once. I bet Sabalenka would win 4 or 5 points in two sets.

And yes, yes I did think too much about this.

Quote:

---

In my "Old" mind, it seemed that in 1973 there was a real, earnest fight for women's rights. Today it seems as if the opposite is true, we are denying that there is any difference between men and women, and that any perceived differences are just societal constructs. I suppose that's why OP chose to post this on Forum 16. You've come a long way, Baby!

---

Women's professional sports associations for like tennis and golf really were not a thing quite yet in the early 70s. Had funding and visibility issues just weren't getting that much publicity and thus generating new fans of women's sports. Billie Jean King took on that mission to boost the attention of women's tennis.

Then came players such as Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova who garnered even more attention. Chris primarily because she was pretty as well as being a great player. Martina because she had so much strength and power in her game. She really walloped the ball and changed the game from long rallies back and force to her delivering an emphatic kill shot like she was spiking a volleyball.

Truly changed the game and thus the players who excelled at it.

I'll bet you she can make a better ham sandwich.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Let's measure in terms of points scored by her.

zero? Maybe 1? Two tops.

---

It would be more than that, I think. A game in tennis goes to 4 points, win by two. Presuming every set won by Jannik Sinner (world #2) requires him to win four points (no deuces), which is highly likely, he has to get 48 points to win 6-0, 6-0.

Now, the key thing for Sabalenka is whether she is playing the game as if she is trying to "win", or just trying to maximize the number of points she wins. If she does the latter, she will hit all of her second serves as first serves, because if she double faults, who cares? It's not like she's going to win a point with a second serve.

So that gives Sabalenka 24 1 in 2 chances to hit a first serve in the court. Her first serve has been clocked north of 130 mph, which obviously is not nearly as hard as the top men serve, but is fast enough that Sinner is not going to be able to hit a clean winner every time. Sabalenka's play is to serve and volley; there is no point in going for a rally she will obviously lose. Serve hard, win point on volley off return. I would put the over and under on her success with this tactic at 2.5 points, if all her serves are 1st serves.

Plus, Sinner will probably mis hit a ball or two along the way. He also might double fault once. I bet Sabalenka would win 4 or 5 points in two sets.

And yes, yes I did think too much about this.

---

Well, one could win 6-0 6-0 without losing a single point. That has never been done before but a "golden set" where you win all 24 points in a row in a set to win it has happened. Bill Scanlon from the 80s tennis did it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_set

I was mistaken, it has happened in high level tennis a long long time ago. There was one in 2019 in ITF level.

Quote:

---

A golden match is when a player does not lose a single point in the entire match. There are five documented cases of this at low-level events. Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman did so in the 1910 Washington State Championships, defeating a Miss Huiskamp (first name unknown).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_set#cite_note-3][3][/url] Later it happened twice in France in the qualifiers of lowest-level professional events, two of them in the span of two months, both against the same 55-year-old man, Tomas Fabian.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_set#cite_note-4][4][/url] A golden match occurred in the qualifiers of an ITF Men's World Tennis Tour event in Doha in 2019, where Krittin Koaykul beat Artem Bahmet.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_set#cite_note-5][5][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_set#cite_note-6][6][/url] Bahmet was a professional sports bettor who had entered the tournament without having played tennis before; his associate bet against him and won roughly 3,000.

---

Found the 2019 video. This doesn't seem like a serious match!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In my "Old" mind, it seemed that in 1973 there was a real, earnest fight for women's rights. Today it seems as if the opposite is true, we are denying that there is any difference between men and women, and that any perceived differences are just societal constructs. I suppose that's why OP chose to post this on Forum 16. You've come a long way, Baby!

---

Women's professional sports associations for like tennis and golf really were not a thing quite yet in the early 70s. Had funding and visibility issues just weren't getting that much publicity and thus generating new fans of women's sports. Billie Jean King took on that mission to boost the attention of women's tennis.

Then came players such as Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova who garnered even more attention. Chris primarily because she was pretty as well as being a great player. Martina because she had so much strength and power in her game. She really walloped the ball and changed the game from long rallies back and force to her delivering an emphatic kill shot like she was spiking a volleyball.

Truly changed the game and thus the players who excelled at it.

---

Yes, these are all great and legendary players. BJK was before my time and I caught only the tail end of Every and Navratilova but they all changed the sport.

However, they should not be trying to compare with men, that is the only issue I have.

infinity ag said:

---

Well, one could win 6-0 6-0 without losing a single point.

---

Not saying it couldn't happen. But if you took Sinner or Carlos Alcaraz and made them play against Sabalenka for a million bucks, where they only get the money if they win all 48 points without losing any, I think they would lose far more often than they would win.

The man beat the woman, so the match is labeled "lighthearted".

It's so dumb. She's good. He's good. Move on to important stuff but we can't seem to do that.

Quote:

---

However, they should not be trying to compare with men, that is the only issue I have.

---

Not saying they even want to but my point (from documentaries about King after she died) was that the way it was pitched to her was the invaluable publicity for the sport of women's tennis, her mission. There were also other things going on in her personal life back then. She was married (to a man obviously) but the marriage was falling apart. But for publicity's sake, that was hidden from the press. Ditto for her developing relationship with her personal assistant as coming out as gay was perceived to hurt the overall goal of promoting the sport. So she remained in the closet for a few more years. She eventually got divorced and came out.

It was towards the end of her career anyway (age catches up with us all) so if she personally took a hit over that, she felt it wouldn't hurt the sport overall.

Mcenroe is telling the truth years ago.. pic.twitter.com/SShUaubvvq

— therapy88 (@Mindt88) December 28, 2025

There was also a transgender tennis player, MTF, Renee Richards, who sued to be allowed to play on the Women's tour. Years later, even Richards admitted to having a large advantage on that tour due to being a biological male.

It is just a different game between men's and women's tennis. Of course one could just as easily make that statement about every other sport.

And now that dude has to hear for the rest of his career about his biggest accomplishment is he beat a woman. How stupid and degrading this was.

mts6175 said:

---

And now that dude has to hear for the rest of his career about his biggest accomplishment is he beat a woman. How stupid and degrading this was.

---

No, this match will be forgotten. Kyrgios is a Wimbledon finalist.

aggiehawg said:

---

There was also a transgender tennis player, MTF, Renee Richards, who sued to be allowed to play on the Women's tour. Years later, even Richards admitted to having a large advantage on that tour due to being a biological male.

It is just a different game between men's and women's tennis. Of course one could just as easily make that statement about every other sport.

---

Richards played as a professional on the women's tour from ages 42 to 47, never winning a tournament but ranking as high as 20 in the world.

It is hard to quantify exactly how much the age difference "offset" Richards' biologic advantage: if you look at athletics world records, the Masters 45 records (men 45 and older) are often very close to the (open) women's world record.

As Richard Raskind, he had been a high level amateur in his 20s and 30s, but not a professional. It seems clear that Richards was substantially more successful competing as a woman than as a man, despite the age disadvantage.

infinity ag said:

---

There's the Battle of the Sexes going on in tennis right now. Women's World No 1 Aryna Sabalenka vs Men's No 600 Nick Kyrgios.



Sabalenka is at her tennis peak right now and Kyrgios hasn't played regularly in 3 years and has been injured a lot.

The reason this is political is because it will take on a political color and based on the result of this match, people will start to push recommendations one side or the other. Billie Jean King played a 55 year old Bobby Riggs in the early 70s and beat him and then made it a big win for feminism. Of course, no one brought up the fact that Riggs won Wimbledon in 1939 before King was even born.

If people want to compare the sexes, then go for it. But why have DEI-like rules that favor women? Look at the court, it's a joke! The logic is that women are 9% slower than men so the male gets 9% less area to hit into. There are some other rules that favor Sabalenka.



If the man wins, nothing will happen.
If the woman wins, they will demand for more pay for women because this match "proves" women can beat men.

If the match is all in fun, then it is fine but I am curious to see what the implications are going to be. I think this match is fixed so it seems competitive. It will never be a blow-out. This will be a 3 setter so as to not embarrass Sabalenka.

---

That is interesting. I wonder if it is actually possible to design a court such that a man and a woman actually would have an equal likelihood of winning. I bet it would look utterly absurd.

Obligatory Harrison Bergeron reference.

Google tells me that the shortest match was 18 minutes (someone named Jack Harper beat J. Sandiford 6-0, 6-0 at the 1946 Surrey Open, while only losing one point)

aggiehawg said:

---

There was also a transgender tennis player, MTF, Renee Richards, who sued to be allowed to play on the Women's tour. Years later, even Richards admitted to having a large advantage on that tour due to being a biological male.

It is just a different game between men's and women's tennis. Of course one could just as easily make that statement about every other sport.

---

Same could be said about men and women's volleyball. The former is quite boring with lots of aces and very short volleys whereas with the latter it's very exciting, lots of long volleys yet their athleticism is still on display.

I think a lot of Aggies learned this fact this month .

They did everything possible to give the match to the woman which means it isn't "light hearted"

If she had won the headline would be "Woman beats Top 12 male professional proving all women in every sport deserve equal pay as men" (while of course not mentioning any of the numerous rule changes in her favorite or that this guy hasn't been ranked that high or played at that level in several years now)

y'all prob thought Jake Paul beat Mike Ttyson too

Equal pay for equal work. I demand men and women be paid the same.

Kyrgios (M) beat Sabalenka (F): 6-3 6-3 with rules biased towards the F.


Net career earnings:

• Aryna Sabalenka: $45,175,621 (https://www.espn.com/tennis/player/_/id/3038/aryna-sabalenka)
• Nick Kyrgios: $12,802,482 (https://www.espn.com/tennis/player/_/id/1984/nick-kyrgios)

Sabalenka ($45.2M) being the inferior player makes almost FOUR times as much as Kyrgios ($12.8M).

I demand that this grave injustice be immediately rectified.

MookieBlaylock said:

---

y'all prob thought Jake Paul beat Mike Ttyson too

---

May as well have been Ron Paul in his last fight.

infinity ag said:

---

Equal pay for equal work. I demand men and women be paid the same.

Kyrgios (M) beat Sabalenka (F): 6-3 6-3 with rules biased towards the F.


Net career earnings:

• Aryna Sabalenka: $45,175,621 (https://www.espn.com/tennis/player/_/id/3038/aryna-sabalenka)
• Nick Kyrgios: $12,802,482 (https://www.espn.com/tennis/player/_/id/1984/nick-kyrgios)

Sabalenka ($45.2M) being the inferior player makes almost FOUR times as much as Kyrgios ($12.8M).

I demand that this grave injustice be immediately rectified.

---

Her lawyers are better at negotiations than his? (joking of course.)

It's all fun.

Relax

Anisomova lost 6-0, 6-0 in the Wimbledon Finals this year. About the fastest match I've ever watched. It was embarrassing and she was crying much of the match.

She's #4 in the world.